It's the same place it is for the other 3/4 of the year... just like you said.
It is now on it's way to becoming a GREAT resort, set in some of the most beautiful mountain and wilderness in the world ALL YEAR 'ROUND, and in one of the only two states IN THE WORLD where one can go to spend a week or two enjoying that scenery while legally intensifying the experience with cannibis. Colorado (and Washington state) "ski" resorts are about to become the hottest year-around property you can own. Even better, maybe, would be a really good delivery pizza store or two, or twenty.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
There IS activity that goes on AH, and also news and discussion (such as this one) that affect what traders will bid/ask at opening, so you can't just subtract .90 and expect that to be the opening transaction. However, if you were actually looking at your Scottrade screen at closing yesterday you'd find that the price shown was .90 higher than what your Scottrade screen states as yesterday's closing price now. That's where the difference shows up. And as someone else said, some agencies list the change as part of the opening price instead of the previous closing price.
There's another factor to consider, and for those of us who are aleady retired, it's a very important one...
If you're trading from your IRA or better yet, your ROTH IRA, the concept of taxation is irrelavent. In the case of the "traditional" IRA it's all simply "income", regardless of whether its dividends or just increased value of your holdings; if you're investing from a ROTH IRA account it isn't even that. Dividends simply aren't taxable. Period.
<investment_mgr>: "...Not only would I make a small fortune, I would meet so many women, I would probably be beside myself and never be able to post again, LOL..."
Well, sure. But don't ya know we'd all be wrinkly women :))
I doubt it. Like nearly all Yahoo! Finance message boards this one seems to be mostly used as a chat room by a handful of people discussing politics and calling each other names.
DUK declared its annual meeting last week (it will be May 7th) and sent out its proxy voting materials. Granted, the only things being voted on are the normal board member and public accountant confirmations, but you'd think at least SOMEONE around here might have found that worth discussing -- maybe even more than Tush Limbo's sexuality even?
If my Personal Angel were to grant me three wishes right now I believe they'd be:
(1) That I could find a business message board where members actually discussed the business.
(2) That the operators of such venues exercised some control over who posts and what they are posting, and are held responsible for doing their job.
(3) That someone could explain to me how Barak Obama can manage to be a communist, a fascist, a democrat, and a dictator all at the same time?
BTW - The latest buzz about Ambient is its relationship with Verizon, but Duke has been at the forefront of applying smart grid science to real-world existing infrastructure and I am certain that Duke is using, or intends to use, Ambient equipment or technology. We already have pilot programs in Charlotte (NC), in South Carolina, and are pushing big-time into my own home area of Cincinatti, Northern Kentucky, and Indiana, and these programs center around the use of two-way data communication, which is Ambient's specialty. Last September, at the Grid Week 2008 convention in Washington, CTO Dave Mohler was featured in a panel alongside Ram Rao, his Ambient counterpart, and also Austin Energy's CIO. I did not attend this meeting but I imagine the purpose for scheduling them together on the panel is that Ambient represents the smart grid technology the two energy companies are building around, or licensing, or are in some way intricately connected.
My guess is they already have most of it ready, at least as far as known issues. Unfortunately, the pirate versions no longer have a market. Too bad :-)
mcurtis_00: "bad?? microsoft will now put Google out of business now that they are allowing interoperability"
Or at least they've begun proactively de-fusing any potential anti-trust actions that Google (or Yahoo for that matter) might be considering as a means of raising the cost and tying up time.
(P.S. - I put the creep on my "ignore" list)
Penhead also mentioned the institutional seller, and your other points make sense. The price of the stock on the TSE does seem like it would favor institutional investors and discourage smaller traders. I imagine the purpose is to reduce volatility and provide a steadier price. Of course, on those occasions when an institution needs to buy or sell quickly it can result in a big drop (or spike).
If that's what's happened I suspect (or hope at least) the past two days indicates that factor may be behind us. At least until the next big fund or investor gets hit by the economy and the need to quickly pull their investment overrides the luxury of doing it slowly and with minimum price effect.
Of course, I sure wouldn't object if such an institutional investor chose to BUY a big ol' wad of 7974 all at once!
Nope, not one little bit!
I like the idea of shorting by competitors, too, even if it IS a little far-fetched.
It IS far-fetched, isn't it?
I mean, of course Japanese securities regs are different from the SEC, but COULD Sony or some other competitor actually get away with doing that? Am I naive to believe that's not a common tactic here as well? If not overtly, then in ways that are difficult to trace back? Considering that one could easily do that with borrowed money (say, from mortgage-backed loans, for example?) that would REALLY open up a can of good ol' Campbell's Worldwide Worms, wouldn't it?
Not terribly serious about the above; just speculatin'. But you certainly gave us some things to think about!
Seventy-six trombones in the China trade,
And a hundred and ten Corvettes in Mumbai,
They were followed by Posts and Posts
Of the Proudest Trader Boasts, there were
Promises of Wealth for You and I....
Welcome, my child, to River City.
Might I interest you in a fine marching band instrument?
<Let me see now---Zolt's main biz is Carbon Fiber, GTI is not in Carbon Fiber. GTI main biz is Graphite Electrodes for Electric Arc furnace steel melting, Zolt is not in Graphite Electrodes.
What is your point?>
Probably to frighten you into selling your shares cheaply before the earnings report.
What other reason might one have to be monitoring and posting messages on a forum for which they have no interest?
<Your cost basis of $65.00 is fine, leave it to bad luck or bad timing. The fundamentals of the stock are sound>
Agreed. I don't have a problem with the valuation of the company itself. Or even that the current stock price is lower than I think it ought to be. My concern is why are there more people willing to sell this stock at decreasing prices than people willing to pay more to buy it?
A single institutional seller doesn't answer that. Institutions (like any other large investor) spread their sales out over time in order to keep from happening exactly what we see happening. It would be a pretty inept fund manager indeed who drove the price of a stock she was selling down 17% in a month. Of course it could be argued that the INTENTION is to do that, in order to buy even more at a lower price. But that is (1) unnecessary; (2) way too risky for an institutional investor; and (3) normally done by shorting the stock, not by selling already-owned shares. By the way, do you know what the short interest is on NTDOY? That might offer a better insight into the price behavior.
<I never said it wasn't extended at $70.00. I like it at $55.00>
<I've got a long term position and don't trade it>
"Do you really think it will ever see $70 again?"
<I bought at $33.00 and would recommended buying below $55.00>
Well, I certainly don't blame you for feeling good about that. But I find it hard to believe that you really expect this stock to reach $70 again, at least not in the near future. If you did, why would you not be buying this stock right now in the mid-fifties? Especially given that the analyst's predictions are for the low nineties (okay, maybe high eighties - see, Tam, I'm TRYING to learn). And the analyst I'm quoting isn't Yahoo!'s; I mean J.P. Morgan Chase -- the depositary for Nintendo ADR. I doubt if they see a $70 price as "extended". Even the $65 I gave as an extreme example would look like a bargain purchase at $90+.
And, more to my point, if those who CLAIM to believe this stock's value is going up (that would include you and presumably most people here) were just holding their shares (as you say you're doing), then what has been happening SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.
I'm sure there are many things about investing that my understanding lacks, but what little I DO know tells me that the reason a stock's price goes UP is that a DEMAND EXISTS for the stock and people WANT TO BUY shares, while owners, like yourself, are happy with their holdings and aren't trading them. That causes the prospective buyers to offer more and more in order to entice you to sell.
And it works, too! As the price being offered goes up, more and more owners agree to sell at the ever-increasing bid. This is how a stock's price goes from $30 to $70 a share.
IT IS NOT how stock goes from $70 to $30. In order to do that, you need to have MORE people WANTING TO SELL than to BUY.
Now, if the situation were simply that there was little interest in buying them, the price would simply remain at $70 where it was (although the trading volume would plummet, of course).
So why would share owners who (really) believe the price will soon rise sell their shares for less than what they cost a month ago? I want to know, Pen, because even though YOU aren't doing that, SOMEONE sure is.
In fact, a LOT of "someones" are doing that. Otherwise the price for a company that's breaking sales, marketshare, and profit records nearly every week wouldn't be falling almost as fast as its revenue is rising!
(Yes, I know it just jumped 3% today - now it's only 17% that it's lost in the past month)
Tam and Pen, thanks for your answers.
Tambourine_Man... <This comment shows your lack of understanding:>
You're correct about that. That's why I posed the question in the first place. And I've heard often about how the prices are affected by monetary exchange rates. Well, it's certainly true that exchange rate hedging, arbitage, the "carry trade", and all that is well out of my level of experience. And I don't even want to go NEAR anything called Four-X!! (sorry, that was a sheep shot; couldn't help it). But nothing that I've read or heard offers an acceptible explanation for how that seems to affect Nintendo's pricing far and away beyond that of OTHER JAPANESE COMPANIES doing business in the U.S.
And although I appreciate the attempt, I'm afraid yours really doesn't help either.
The 334 yen difference in your example would be an 11% drop, not 15%. And you calculated that on the $249 U.S. retail price, which is set by the U.S. distribution network and fluctuations in the exchange rate are already factored in. That price is not the WHOLESALE price that Nintendo gets, though. Their revenue from U.S. sales diminishes only as the units they were already committed to are delivered. NEW SALES (which is what we're concerned with as investors) prices will simply include higher USD wholesale prices. Let the retailer deal with it as she may. Or perhaps Nintendo's U.S. distribution contracts don't allow for such adjustments; that might explain why the U.S. is so low on their list for deliveries and product introductions at the moment. When the dollar begins to stabilize at a higher rate, there will be plenty of DSs and Wiis available.
And the exchange rate difference is really more a "cost of production/distribution" issue. Variations in the price of oil or aluminum among Nintendo's vendors probably impacts their costs as much or more.
In any event, even the amount mentioned would only apply to the portion of Nintendo's worldwide sales that are made to UNITED STATES retailers. The U.S. market accounts for about 30% of Nintendo's worldwide production of the DS, and probably a similar proportion of Wii, so you'll need to lop a bit over two thirds off the total losses you can attribute to the USD/Yen situation.
And if that weren't already enough, remember that an even larger portion of their revenue is paid for in Euros (which trade higher than the Yen), which would offset (or maybe even eliminate) the U.S. difference.
Excuse me? You seem a bit stressed; can I get you something?
Perhaps a saucer of milk?
I thought I had made the allegory clear earlier in the posting; "He" IS the open market.
But my question isn't whether it's advisable to BUY at the lowest price someone will sell at -- of course you're right; that IS pretty simple. It's why are so many of us shareholders willing to SELL our shares for ever-decreasing prices if we really do feel the value is just about to shoot up?
The longer they delay, the better.
Every time Nintendo announces a new product or a records a new all-time high sales/profit/marketshare figure, the price of NTDOY stock takes another dive, then climbs back about halfway to where it was and dives again.
If they get any more successful, my investment will be completely worthless!
Since you have so much faith in NTDOY, why wouldn't you pay more than $55.40 a share for more of it yesterday?
Not "you" personally, of course -- I mean "you" as in, "whoever is willing to buy NTDOY, but not for as much as they did before the latest sales/profit/marketshare victory".
It's not just the American Depositary (NTDOY ADR). The parent stock behaves the same on the Tokyo Exchange, trading in yen.
It's not the Dollar/Yen relationship, either. Counter to what you might imagine, we're actually better off because of the exchange difference. That's because ADRs deal in our native currency, not in yen. In fact, if you were trading 7974:JP on the TSE, you'd be doing (marginally) even worse. The company's success has cost its Japanese investors 5.37% during the past week, while NTDOY (our ADR) dropped only 5.01% in that time.
I just want to know why it's dropping at all. Is Nintendo's corporate philosophy really such that they feel most comfortable with business generating a steady $12-$20 price level. That IS a widespread attitude in Asia, and one for which I have great respect. It tends to place integrity, both of the product and of the workers who produce it, ahead of monetary profit; and I see those qualities in Nintendo's actions. Such a viewpoint also tends to consider wide deviations -- in either direction -- as uncomfortable and indicative of a need to correct them. Variations such as the huge success of the Wii & DS may not be as attrative to them as it would be to American or European companies lucky enough to find themselves in the same position.
If that's true, then the Nintendo Company certainly deserves and gets my full respect, and I'll gladly use and recommend their products -- but I think I'd better take my money elsewhere if I'm looking for it to grow.
Do you really think it will ever see $70 again?
Well, then, would you buy 100 shares from me today for $65?
Uh huh; that's what I thought. Why not?